This is the Final Decision on an IDEA 2004 Part B written complaint that I filed against our MI Department of Ed. It is not a blog. It is an actual Final Report that must be shared across the nation. The MI Department of Ed’s finding that this renegade Department does not have to investigate Part B special education complaints must be addressed by the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs and they must be put into their place, IMMDEDIATELY! Please share far and wide for the sake of MI and America’s children with eroding IEPs.
RICK SNYDER
Governor
June 16, 2014
Marcie Lipsitt
27260 Willowgreen Court
Franklin, MI 48025
State of Michigan
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Lansing
Case: 14-00270
MICHAEL P. FLANAGAN
State Superintendent
Dear Ms. Lipsitt:
You recently filed a state complaint against Michigan Department of Education
(district). The Michigan Department of Education, Office of Special Education (OSE)
case manager clarified the allegations in your state complaint by conference call on
June 16, 2014.
The following allegations are within the authority of the OSE and will be resolved in
accordance with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the
Michigan Administrative Rules for Special Education (MARSE) using the Michigan
Department of Education Special Education Problem Solving Procedures:
Please note that the allegations in the final decision may not be numbered in the
same order as the original complaint or in this letter.
If you have any questions, please contact me at (517) 335-0461.
STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION
JOHN C. AUSTIN-PRESIDENT . CASANDRA E. ULBRICH – VICE PRESIDENT
DANIEL VARNER – SECRETARY • RICHARD ZEILE – TREASURER
MICHELLE FECTEAU – NASBE DELEGATE « LUPE RAMOS-MONTIGNY
KATHLEEN N. STRAUS • EILEEN LAPPIN WEISER
608 WEST ALLEGAN STREET • P.O. BOX 30008 • LANSING, MICHIGAN 48909
www.michigan.gov/mde • (517)373-3324
Ron Greiner, Case Manager
Program Accountability
Michigan Department of Education
Office of Special Education
RG/
Sheryl Diamond
State of Michigan
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
RICK SNYDER LANSING MICHAEL P. FLANAGAN
GOVERNOR STATE SUPERINTENDENT
August 5, 2014
Marcie Lipsitt
27260 Willowgreen Court
Franklin, Michigan 48025
Sheryl Diamond, Supervisor
Office of Special Education
608 W. Allegan St.
P.O. Box 30008
Lansing, Michigan 48909 Case: 14-00270
Dear Ms. Lipsitt and Ms. Diamond:
Enclosed is a copy of the Final Report in case 14-00270, the complaint filed by
Marcie Lipsitt (complainant) against Michigan Department of Education (public
agency).
The Office of Special Education concluded the public agency was in compliance and
has, therefore, closed the case as of the date of this letter.
The determination to close this case applies only to the specific matter(s) addressed
in this case and does not represent a general confirmation of compliance regarding
factual situations falling outside the case.
Pursuant to the State of Michigan Record Retention and Disposal Schedule, the case
file in this matter will be destroyed when it has been inactive (closed) for three
If you have any questions or concerns regarding this matter, please contact me at
(517) 335-0461. To avoid loss or unnecessary delay in response,-all
correspondence should be clearly marked as pertaining to case 14-00270.
Sincerely,
Program Accountability
Office of Special Education
STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION
JOHN C. AUSTIN-PRESIDENT . CASANDRA E. ULBRICH – VICE PRESIDENT
DANIEL VARNER-SECRETARY • RICHARD 2EILE – TREASURER
MICHELLE FECTEAU-NASBE DELEGATE • LUPE RAMOS-MONTIGNY
KATHLEEN N. STRAUS • EILEEN LAPPIN WEISER
608 WEST ALLEGAN STREET . P.O. BOX 30008 • LANSING, MICHIGAN 48909
www.michigan.gov/mde • (517) 373-3324
MICHIGAN�,
Education
OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION
FINAL DECISION for State Complaint 14-00270
against the Michigan Department of Education Office of Special Education
August 5, 2014
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Date Filed:
MDE Case Manager:
Complainant:
Address:
Telephone:
Public Agency:
Resident and Operating District
June 9, 2014
Ron Greiner
Marcie Lipsitt
27260 Willowgreen Court
Franklin, Michigan 48025
248-514-2101
Michigan Department of Education (MDE)
Office of Special Education (OSE)
Southfield Public Schools (District)
INDIVIDUALS CONTACTED
- Complainant
- Bob Hove, Case Manager for 14-00011, Program Accountability MDE/OSE
- Harvalee Saunto, Due Process Coordinator, Program Accountability, MDE/OSE
- Michelle Wolschlager, Complaints Investigator, Oakland Schools
DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
- MDE/OSE case file for 14-00011:
Parent unsigned letter to district requesting special education evaluation
dated August 9, 2013; date stamped received on September 16, 2013
Parent signed letter to district requesting special education evaluation
dated August 9, 2013; date stamped received on September 27, 2013
District Parent Request Procedure Outline for 2013-2014 school year
District written notice to parent providing parent with reasons district did
not intend to conduct initial evaluation dated September 27, 2013
District newsletter titled KEYS for Week dated September 30, 2013
Letter of complaint dated January 8, 2014 filed by parent and advocate;
date stamped received by MDE/OSE on January 10, 2014
Parent request for special education evaluation dated January 8, 2014
Oakland Schools investigator emailto advocate, parent and MDE/OSE
case manager dated January 27, 2014
MDE/OSE case manager calendar for January 28, 2014
District proposed resolution dated January 30, 2014
State Complaint Final Decision: 14-00270
Office of Special Education
Page 1
PA-OSE/State Complaint Document/Fina4 0ecision/6-3-
2013
- District letter to parent informing parent of district intent to conduct a
review of existing evaluation data and possible subsequent request for
consent to conduct initial evaluation for suspected disability dated January
30, 2014
- MDE/OSE letter to district accepting district proposed resolution, copied to
parent, advocate and Oakland Schools personnel, dated February 7, 2014
- District invitation to parent to attend meeting to review existing
evaluation data dated February 20, 2014
- District copies of letters to parents of two other district students related to
evaluating the students for suspected disabilities, dated February 14 and
20, 2014
- District Parent Request Tracker identifying six students and dates related
to initial referrals, written notices and reviews of evaluation data dated
February 25, 2014
- District chart on MDE/OSE Continuous Improvement Monitoring System
(CIMS) Fields for Noncompliance undated
- District review of existing evaluation data dated March 24, 2014
- MDE/OSE letter to parties informing them of closure dated May 14, 2014
- Advocate emails to MDE/OSE dated May 19, 2014
- MDE/OSE email to advocate dated May 23, 2014
- Advocate emails to the MDE/OSE dated May 23, 2014
- MDE/OSE Case file for 14-00067:
- Letter of complaint dated February 11, 2014 filed by advocate and parent;
dated stamped received by MDE/OSE on February 11, 2014
- MDE/OSE allegation letter to advocate and parent dated February 26,
2014
- Email from MDE/OSE to Oakland Schools investigator dated March 10,
2014
- Email from Oakland Schools investigator to parent dated March 14, 2014
- Email from Oakland Schools investigator to MDE/OSE dated March 14,
2014
- MDE/OSE Final Decision and case closure dated March 25, 2014
- Email from advocate to MDE/OSE dated April 15, 2014
- MDE/OSE internal email dated April 21, 2014
- Email from advocate to MDE/OSE dated April 27, 2014
- Emails from MDE/OSE to advocate and parent dated April 28, 2014
- Email from advocate to MDE/OSE dated April 28, 2014
- Email from MDE/OSE to advocate dated April 29, 2014
- Email from advocate to MDE/OSE dated April 29, 2014
- MDE/OSE memorandum to file dated May 13, 2014
- MDE/OSE Special Education Problem Solving Process dated August 2013
- United States Department of Education Office of Civil Rights (OCR) Case
Processing Manual dated January 2010 (relevant sections last updated April 9,
2014)
- Information from six states regarding district proposed resolutions
State Complaint Final Decision: 14-00270 Page 2
Office of Special Education
PA-OSE/State Complaint Document/Final Decision/6-3-2013
| Conclusion | Allegation | |
| Compliant | Allegation 1 | Whether the MDE/OSE adhered to the Complaint
Procedures, the Michigan Administrative Rules for Special Education (MARSE) and the final regulations implementing the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in resolving state complaint 14- 00011 |
| Compliant | Allegation 2 | Whether the MDE/OSE involved the complainants in
the investigation of state complaint 14-00011 |
| Compliant | Allegation 3 | Whether the MDE/OSE corrective action in state
complaint 14-00011 addressed compensatory education |
| Compliant | Allegation 4 | Whether the MDE/OSE closed state complaint 14-
00011 even though the district requested parent consent and convened the individualized education program (IEP) team meeting beyond the timelines specified in the district proposed resolution plan |
ALLEGATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
Allegation 1
INVESTIGATION
Whether the MDE/OSE adhered to the Complaint Procedures,
the MARSE and the IDEA in resolving state complaint 14-
00011
Legal Requirement for Allegation 1:
Consistent with 34 CFR § 300.151(a) each state must develop procedures for
resolving state complaints.
Consistent with 34 CFR § 300.152(a) each state’s complaint procedures must
address five elements:
- Carry out an independent on-site investigation
- Give complainants opportunities to submit additional information
- Provide a district with the opportunity to submit a district proposed
resolution and provide the complainant and the district with the option to
pursue mediation
- Review relevant information and make an independent determination
- Issue a final decision to the parties.
Consistent with R 340.1701a(c) the state complaint procedures document is not
enforceable through the state complaint process.
State Complaint Final Decision: 14-00270
Office of Special Education
PA-OSE/State Complaint Document/Final Decision/6-3-2013
Page 3
Findings of Fact for Allegation 1:
The district received an unsigned letter dated August 9, 2013 from the parent; the
letter is date stamped received on September 16, 2013. A hand-written note at the
bottom states “no signature, called parent to inform.” The district received a second
signed letter dated August 9, 2013 from the parent; the letter is date stamped
received on September 27, 2013. The district sent a written notice to the parent
dated September 27, 2013; the written notice met the requirements of 34 CFR
- 300.503 and it indicated that the district would not conduct an initial evaluation
because the district wanted more time to work with the student.
The parent requested an initial special education evaluation in a letter dated
January 8, 2014 to the district.
The advocate and the parent submitted a state complaint dated January 8, 2014,
date-stamped received by the MDE/OSE on January 10, 2014. The MDE/OSE
opened the state complaint as 14-00011. The advocate and parent alleged the
district did not request parent consent to conduct an initial evaluation for a
suspected disability after the parent submitted a letter to the district dated August
9, 2013, requesting an evaluation for the student. The allegation also referred to
other un-named students.
The advocate and the parent participated in a conference call with the Oakland
Schools investigator and the MDE/OSE case manager to clarify the allegations in
14-00011 on January 28, 2014.
The district submitted a district proposed resolution for 14-00011 to the MDE/OSE
dated January 30, 2014. The following were attached:
- A district newsletter titled KEYS for Week dated September 30, 2013,
evidencing a district procedure for staff to respond to parent requests to
evaluate students for suspected disabilities
- A written notice to the parent dated January 30, 2014 indicating district
intent to conduct a review of existing evaluation data and request parent
consent to evaluate
- A copy of the state complaint 14-00011
- A copy of the district written notice dated September 27, 2013.
In a letter to the district dated February 7, 2014 the MDE/OSE accepted the district
proposed resolution for 14-00011. The MDE/OSE required the district to:
- Schedule a meeting to conduct a review of existing evaluation data for the
student
- Evaluate the district’s procedures regarding parent requests for evaluating
students with suspected disabilities
- Provide ongoing communication with district staff about parental requests to
evaluate students with suspected disabilities
The MDE/OSE did not make any findings of noncompliance. The advocate, the
parent and Oakland Schools are copied on the letter.
State Complaint Final Decision: 14-00270 Page 4
Office of Special Education
PA-OSE/State Complaint Document/Final Decision/6-3-2013
The advocate and the parent submitted a state complaint to the MDE/OSE dated
February 11, 2014, date stamped received on February 11, 2014. The MDE/OSE
opened the state complaint as 14-00067.
District documents for 14-00011 received by the MDE/OSE on February 25, 2014
include:
- Invitation to the parent to attend a review of existing evaluation data
meeting scheduled for March 7, 2014 dated February 20, 2014
- Written notice to two other parents dated February 20, 2014 proposing to
conduct reviews of existing evaluation data for their students
- Chart dated February 25, 2014 identifying six students and dates related to
initial referrals, written notices and reviews of existing evaluation data
- Chart on the MDE/OSE CIMS noncompliance for timeliness of initial
evaluations for school year 2012-2013 indicated 100% compliance.
The advocate and the parent participated in a conference call with the Oakland
Schools investigator and the MDE/OSE to clarify the allegations in 14-00067 on
February 26, 2014. In a letter dated February 26, 2014 the MDE/OSE identified the
allegation as: whether the district responded in a timely manner to a request for a
special education evaluation sent by fax on January 9, 2014. The allegation also
referred to other un-named students.
In a phone call on March 10, 2014 the district director of special education informed
the MDE/OSE that the district never received a written request for a special
education evaluation from the parent, either by letter or fax, on or about January 9,
- An MDE/OSE email to the Oakland Schools investigator requested the
investigator contact the parent and request documentation the fax was sent. An
Oakland Schools email to the parent requested the fax cover page. An email from
the parent indicated the fax cover page could not be found. An Oakland Schools
email to the MDE/OSE indicated the fax cover page could not be found.
The MDE/OSE issued a Final Decision for 14-00067 on March 25, 2014 finding the
district compliant because the parent could not produce documentation that the
parent had sent the request for a special education evaluation to the district. The
Final Decision closed 14-00067.
The MDE/OSE closed 14-00011 on May 14, 2014 because the district had submitted
the information required in the MDE/OSE letter dated February 7, 2014.
The MDE/OSE reviewed the MDE/OSE Special Education Problem Solving Process.
The MDE/OSE notes pages 8-13 identify a variety of informal and formal problem
solving techniques and processes, ranging from informal or facilitated meetings
through formal state complaints. Page 13 also indicates that consistent with the
requirements at 34 CFR § 300.152(a)(3)(i) of the IDEA, prior to the investigation of
a formal state complaint, the district, at its discretion, may submit a written
proposal to the MDE/OSE to resolve the state complaint.
State Complaint Final Decision: 14-00270 Page 5
Office of Special Education
PA-OSE/State Complaint Document/Final Decision/6-3-2013
The MDE/OSE validated its internal controls for managing district proposed
resolutions by requesting and reviewing information from other states about their
processes for district proposed resolutions. The MDE/OSE noted:
- Idaho has a process for district proposed resolutions; it does not involve
findings of compliance or noncompliance; complainants are not involved in
the proposal itself but they are informed in a final letter
- Kansas has a process; it does not involve findings of compliance or
noncompliance; if the proposal is accepted the complainants are informed
that: district has exercised its right under federal regulation to propose a
resolution; Kansas has accepted the proposal; and Kansas will monitor
completion of the proposal.
The MDE/OSE validated its internal controls for managing district proposed
resolutions by retrieving and reviewing an on-line version of the OCR Case
Processing Manual. The MDE/OSE reviewed the sections related to district proposed
resolutions and noted:
- Section 302 Resolution Agreement Reached During an Investigation: The
district expresses an interest in a resolution; the OCR agrees that it is
appropriate to resolve the complaint during the investigation; the OCR keeps
the complainant informed throughout the resolution process
- Section 304 Guidelines for Resolution Agreements: The complaint is
considered resolved if the district enters into an agreement that remedies
the complaint. Resolution agreements must include: signatures of personnel
with the authority to bind the district; specific steps/acts the district will
undertake to resolve the issues; dates for implementing steps/actions; dates
for submitting reports and documents verifying implementation; and a
statement that the OCR can begin various actions to enforce the agreement
- Section 307 Monitoring Resolution Agreements: OCR will closely monitor
resolution agreements through a variety of actions consistent with the terms
of the agreement; OCR will conclude monitoring when OCR determines the
district has effectively implemented the terms of the agreement. The
complainant will be informed when the monitoring is concluded.
The MDE/OSE Due Process Coordinator interviewed OCR staff. OCR staff indicated:
- The parent is apprised of the resolution agreement, but OCR’s primary focus
is the district
- If the parent wants control of and involvement in the resolution agreement
process, the parent should pursue mediation
- OCR does not determine compliance or noncompliance in the resolution
agreement process
- Resolution agreements: resolve issue quicker for the student; preserve
relationships between the parent and the district; take less resources; are
effective in most typical complaints.
State Complaint Final Decision: 14-00270 Page 6
Office of Special Education
PA-OSE/State Complaint Document/Final Decision/6-3-2013
Conclusion for Allegation 1:
Parents and districts who disagree about educating a student with a disability can
use a variety of informal and formal ways to resolve that disagreement. For
example, consistent with 34 CFR § 300.152(a)(3)(H) parents and districts can
engage in mediation. As long as parents are engaged in any of the available
informal processes or in mediation, they maintain control over the outcomes. If
parents file a state complaint, they and the district still have the mediation option
available, but if that is not successful, or parents or the district decide not to
participate in mediation and proceed with the state complaint, parents and the
district turn decision making over to the state.
34 CFR § 300.151(a) requires the state to develop complaint procedures. 34 CFR
- 300.152(a) identifies five elements that must be described in the state complaint
- Each of these elements is discrete and there is no requirement that an
investigation or final decision address, include or incorporate each of the five
34 CFR § 300.152(a)(3)(i) requires the state complaint procedures to provide a
district with an opportunity to submit a proposal to resolve a state complaint.
Neither the IDEA nor the MARSE identifies any specific requirements for a district
proposed resolution, other than the district has that option. Consistent with 34 CFR
- 300.152(a)(3)(i) the MDE/OSE Special Education Problem Solving Process allows
a district to pursue a district proposed resolution. Several states and the OCR have
different district proposed resolution processes that involve parents/ complainants
in varying degrees. In 14-00011 the district exercised its regulatory-based option
and submitted a district proposed resolution. The MDE/OSE reviewed all of the
information from other states and the OCR in responding to the district proposed
resolution in 14-00011. The OSE accepted the district proposed resolution,
monitored the district implementation of the district proposed resolution and closed
14-00011 when the district submitted evidence of implementation. In identifying a
district proposed resolution option within the MDE/OSE Problem Solving Process
and in accepting and monitoring the district proposed resolution in 14-00011 the
MDE/OSE is compliant with 34 CFR § 300.152(a)(3)(i).
Allegation 2 Whether the MDE/OSE involved the complainants in the
investigation of state complaint 14-00011
Legal Requirement for Allegation 2:
Consistent with 34 CFR § 300.152(a)(2) each state’s complaint procedures must
provide the complainant with the opportunity to provide additional information
about the complaint orally or in writing.
Findings of Fact for Allegation 2:
The Conclusion in Allegation 1 is incorporated as relevant to Allegation 2.
State Complaint Final Decision: 14-00270 Page 7
Office of Special Education
PA-OSE/State Complaint Document/Final Decision/6-3-2013
The parent and advocate participated in a conference call with the Oakland Schools
investigator and the MDE/OSE to clarify the allegations in 14-00011 on January 28,
- “
In a letter to the district dated February 7, 2014 the MDE/OSE accepted the district
proposed resolution for 14-00011. The advocate, the parent and Oakland Schools
are copied on the letter.
The MDE/OSE closed 14-00011 on May 14, 2014 and informed the parent,
advocate, district and Oakland Schools.
Pages 14 and 15 of the MDE/OSE Special Education Problem Solving Process
address involving parents/complainants in the state complaint investigation
Conclusion for Allegation 2:
The MDE/OSE is compliant with 34 CFR § 300.152(a)(2) because the MDE/OSE
provided the parent and advocate with an opportunity to submit additional
information and the MDE/OSE informed the parent and advocate about the district
proposed resolution at several points in time.
Allegation 3 Whether the MDE/OSE corrective action in state complaint
14-00011 addressed compensatory education
Legal Requirement for Allegation 3:
Consistent with 34 CFR § 300.151(b)(1) the MDE/OSE must address the failure to
provide appropriate services if the MDE/OSE finds noncompliance.
Findings of Fact for Allegation 3:
The MDE/OSE did not make any findings of noncompliance in 14-00011.
Conclusion for Allegation 3:
The MDE/OSE is compliant with 34 CFR § 300.151(b)(1) because the MDE/OSE did
not make any findings of noncompliance.
Allegation 4 Whether the MDE/OSE closed state complaint 14-00011 even
though the district requested parent consent and convened
the IEP team meeting beyond the timelines specified in the
district proposed resolution plan
State Complaint Final Decision: 14-00270 Page 8
Office of Special Education
PA-OSE/State Complaint Document/Final Decision/6-3-2013
Legal Requirement for Allegation 4:
Consistent with 34 CFR § 300.152(b)(2) each state’s complaint procedures must
include procedures for effective implementation of the final decision.
Findings of Fact for Allegation 4:
The MDE/OSE did not issue a final decision or make any findings of noncompliance
in 14-00011.
Regarding 14-00011:
- The district submitted a district proposed resolution for 14-00011, including a
district newsletter with a procedure for staff to respond to parent requests to
evaluate students and a written notice to the parent indicating district intent
to conduct a review of existing evaluation data
- The MDE/OSE required the district to schedule a meeting to conduct a review
of existing evaluation data, review procedures for parent requests to
evaluate students with suspected disabilities and communicate with staff
about parental requests to evaluate students with suspected disabilities
- The district submitted an invitation to the parent to attend a review of
existing evaluation data meeting, a chart identifying six students and dates
related to referrals and a CIMS chart for timeliness of initial evaluations,
indicating 100% compliance.
The MDE/OSE closed 14-00011 on May 14, 2014 because the district submitted the
required documents.
Conclusion for Allegation 4:
In 14-00011 the MDE/OSE neither issued a final decision nor made any findings of
- The district also submitted what was required as part of the district
proposed resolution. The MDE/OSE is compliant with 34 CFR § 300.152(a)(2).
State Complaint Final Decision: 14-00270 Page 9
Office of Special Education
PA-OSE/State Complaint Document/Final Decision/6-3-2013